INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

reassessment order but the AO had reduced the claim of deduction u/s 80HH and 80I of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this case held that it was not permissible. The Hon’ble Court however held that had the AO proceeded to make disallowance in respect 23 of the items of club fees, gifts and present

RAM KISHORE RATHORE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

reassessment order are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred by limitation, contrary to facts & law and based upon recording of incorrect facts and finding, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. 10. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

CIT vs. KRIBHCO

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. xxxx 80-A. Deductions to be made in computing total income.—(1) In computing the total income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. xxxx 80-A. Deductions to be made in computing total income.—(1) In computing the total income

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings arguing that the same are bad in law. The ld AR first submitted that for the Assessment Year 2008-09 the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on reappreciation of the same facts which were available in original assessment proceedings. Further based on assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for subsequent

M/S. A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings arguing that the same are bad in law. The ld AR first submitted that for the Assessment Year 2008-09 the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on reappreciation of the same facts which were available in original assessment proceedings. Further based on assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act for subsequent

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notice was struck down. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.04.2012. In this case the precise question which arose under Section 10A was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of the unit

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

reassessment notice was struck down. This decision was followed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. decided on 09.04.2012. In this case the precise question which arose under Section 10A was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of the unit

VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act restored back by ITAT. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the order of the Judicial Member of ITAT, wherein he has directed the CIT(A) to decide on merit the issue involved in regard to the allowing deduction of Revised Claim u/s. 80I. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s Quantum Appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act restored back by ITAT. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the order of the Judicial Member of ITAT, wherein he has directed the CIT(A) to decide on merit the issue involved in regard to the allowing deduction of Revised Claim u/s. 80I. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred